Chavdar Vasilev is a journalist covering the casino and sports betting market sectors for CasinoBeats. He joined CasinoBeats in May 2025 and reports on industry-shaping stories across the US and beyond, including legislative debates, market...
Read Full BioA North Carolina man has filed a federal lawsuit against sweepstakes casino operators ARB Gaming LLC (Modo Casino) and B2Services OU (McLuck Social Casino), along with lending company Affirm, alleging they knowingly exploited his gambling addiction, which caused him severe financial and emotional harm.
The 346-page complaint, filed in the Eastern District of California, alleges that the companies operate illegal gambling systems disguised as sweepstakes.
Plaintiff Matthew Joyce of Chapel Hill, who suffers from a recognized gambling disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety, claims that the defendants “targeted Plaintiff, knowingly exploited his gambling addiction, and engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to maximize his financial losses.”
Exploitation Through VIP Treatment & Delayed Withdrawals
Joyce claims he received a “Black Diamond” VIP status at Modo. He would receive free credits, personalized hosts, and special benefits designed to keep him playing.
In the lawsuit, he provides examples of emails showing VIP representatives referring to a “monthly budget with ‘wiggle room’” reserved for gifting him sweepstakes coins.
Joyce also alleges that he received special treatment not available to all players. That he says contradicts the defendants’ claims that their platforms provide equal treatment to all users.
Joyce says McLuck failed to “implement adequate verification processes, deliberately delayed processing withdrawal requests, and created unnecessary barriers to cashing out winnings.” That trapped him in continuing to play.
Furthermore, Joyce claims that he won $6,000 but was later forced to sign new terms and conditions under duress, which he “was forced to accept as a condition of continuing play, further evidencing Defendants’ exploitative practices.”
At other times, he says, wins were timed on weekends, when withdrawals could not be processed. That gave him the opportunity—and temptation—to cancel them and continue gambling.
Additionally, a forensic report filed as evidence concludes that the RTP, or payout percentages, were manipulated. Initially, they appeared favorable, then worsened at key financial moments.
Predatory Loans Through Affirm
Joyce also names Affirm as a defendant. He accuses the company of facilitating his gambling through high-interest loans, many with APRs of 24 to 25 percent.
According to the complaint, Joyce took out dozens of Affirm loans in January 2025 alone to purchase Gold Coin packages at Modo. Transactions typically ranged from $299.99 to $499.99, demonstrating “a clear pattern of addiction-driven borrowing.”
Affirm representatives later acknowledged to Plaintiff that their “system does not detect [gambling transactions] right away.” That allows initial transactions to process despite violating their terms of service.
Joyce claims his losses were not only gambling funds. Over the course of his addiction, he had to sell stores and incur other business-related losses. That amounted to $200,000 in one year and over $1 million in a decade.
Legal Claims & Damages Sought
Joyce’s lawsuit brings seven claims, including:
- Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (disability discrimination)
- Fraud and negligent misrepresentation
- Breach of contract
- Unfair business practices
- Unjust enrichment
- Violation of California’s Financial Lenders Law
He is seeking $10.5 million from Modo, $1 million from McLuck, $1 million from Affirm, and $2.5 million in damages.
Consumer Protections: Real Casinos vs. Sweepstakes Platforms
A central theme of Joyce’s complaint is that sweepstakes casinos exploit the absence of responsible gambling safeguards that licensed casinos are legally required to provide.
At regulated online and retail casinos:
- Licensing by state gaming commissions ensures oversight.
- Responsible gambling tools (self-exclusion, deposit limits, timeouts) are mandatory.
- Identity verification prevents underage gambling and enforces AML rules.
- Independent labs certify payout percentages (RTP).
- Regulators provide dispute resolution channels for players.
At sweepstakes casinos:
- No gaming commission oversight or licensing requirements.
- No enforceable responsible gambling tools or intervention obligations.
- Verification is often delayed until withdrawals, which can frustrate cash-out attempts.
- No independent audits of RTP or fairness.
- Players have no regulator to appeal to, leaving lawsuits as the only recourse.
Joyce’s case argues that rather than merely failing to provide protections, Modo and McLuck went further—actively exploiting addiction through inducements, manipulative win-loss timing, and debt financing.
As they’ve faced growing criticism, many sweepstakes casinos have recently introduced some responsible gambling tools. Some, like VGW, operator of Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker, have implemented a minimum age of 21 to please some critics.
VGW has also become a founding member of the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance. This trade group claims that members monitor behavior, train staff, and offer tools to players to play responsibly.
A Different Kind of Lawsuit in a Growing Legal Storm
Joyce’s complaint adds to a growing list of lawsuits against sweepstakes casinos across the US. There are about 60 active lawsuits, with 20 filed in the past two months alone.
Most of those are class actions alleging illegal gambling. Still, operators have frequently succeeded in forcing arbitration or winning dismissals on standing grounds.
Joyce’s complaint joins a few that stand out due to their distinct framing. Rather than simply arguing the games are unlawful, Joyce paints the platforms’ actions as predatory exploitation of a known gambling disorder, pairing consumer protection, disability discrimination, and lending law claims into a single case.
California is emerging as the epicenter of these challenges. Recently, a national class action was filed in the Northern District of California on behalf of spouses of VGW customers who share bank accounts but never agreed to the terms of service. Using this framework, the plaintiffs aim to circumvent VGW’s arbitration clauses.
Another filing from just days ago, Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto brought the first government enforcement action against sweepstakes casinos. She is suing Stake.us, Kick Streaming, and suppliers, including Evolution.
Together, the government and various consumer cases show that sweepstakes casinos are under mounting pressure on multiple fronts.
